+1 (non-binding)
> On Mar 19, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Brian Hulette <bhule...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I double-checked why a JSON object was allowed in the first place. It looks
> like the original motivation was to support PROJJSON, but we switched to
> using projjson:<identifier> where <identifier> points to a table property.
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:45 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <etudenhoef...@apache.org
> <mailto:etudenhoef...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:30 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ust...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Makes sense.
>>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:07 AM Jia Yu <ji...@apache.org
>>> <mailto:ji...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> On 2025/03/19 00:01:00 Szehon Ho wrote:
>>>> > Hi everyone,
>>>> >
>>>> > While working on the reference implementation for Geometry/Geography
>>>> > spec,
>>>> > we noticed some parts that can be simplified for this first version:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. Default values should always be null (requires WKT serialization
>>>> > logic, for not many real world use cases)
>>>> > 2. JSON type serialization can be a json string, not a json object.
>>>> >
>>>> > I would like to raise a vote for this minor change to the V3 spec to the
>>>> > geo types. The PR is: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12533.
>>>> >
>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>> >
>>>> > [ ] +1 Add these simplifications to the V3 Geo spec
>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>> > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Szehon
>>>> >
